Bill Maher Calls Out Rush Limbaugh Boycotters

[AUDub 11,148]

I'm 2 fer 2.

Try using what I really do, by stating the facts .

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Lol. Show me proof

25 quotes are provided

None of those are true because I say so

Then out of 25 find one or two that may or may not be true, just cause a little doubt then say I proved to you none are true because this one may or may not be true.

Great plan. I'm stealing this technique.

I'm 2 fer 2.

Try using what I really do, by stating the facts .

Until shown otherwise, you're 2 for 33.

Quotes with source links were provided. You made the assertion that none of them were true. Until you debunk them all, your job isn't finished unless of course you'd like to withdraw the assertion.

[AURaptor 1,122]

I'm not wasting my time debunking every claim . I've shown the list to be biased & disingenuous , at best.

[DKW 86 7,423]

• "I thank God for my addiction. It made me understand my shortcomings."

— on his prescription drug scandal. The New York Times Magazine, July 6, 2008

I don't see how that one is all that bad. I've heard a lot of people say similar things about struggles they had, even ones they brought on themselves. In a weird way, they feel like they came of it a better person than they would have been had they never dealt with that problem at all.

Titan, Rush isnt PC => Rush is also the spawn of Satan.

That is as deep as it goes with most of the posts around here.

I get that Rush is a drug addled *****head. I said that a while back. I do not listen to the fool at all. He is on the same level as Sharpton, O'Donnell, Schultz, Hayes, Beck, Hannity, et al.

These guys say crap no one thinks is true to feed raw meat to their masses. THE PROBLEM: some folks on the opposite side of their debates can only see that the opposite side pulls this crap.

[AUDub 11,148]

I'm not wasting my time debunking every claim . I've shown the list to be biased & disingenuous , at best.

No. You have not. If you're not willing to support your assertion, then withdraw it,

[AURaptor 1,122]

One last word ... Folks are confusing defending Rush's factual comments vs slander & lies as liking him. Like or dislike him, it doesn't matter. To vilify him for false statements attributed to him, made up statements, or remarks taken out of context , is flat out wrong.

Just like with Obama... hold him accountable for the bad things he's actually done & not the bat guano things which aren't of his doing.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

I'm not wasting my time debunking every claim . I've shown the list to be biased & disingenuous , at best.

You've done no such thing. Pointing out 2 instances you believe to be in error in some way doesn't prove anything. You made an assertion. You have failed to demonstrate your assertion is true. Put up or shut up. Simple as that.

[AURaptor 1,122]

I'm not wasting my time debunking every claim . I've shown the list to be biased & disingenuous , at best.

No. You have not. If you're not willing to support your assertion, then withdraw it,

Nope. I've shown reasonable doubt that the list is in any way credible or holds water. It doesn't. My work here is done.

[AUDub 11,148]

Nope. I've shown reasonable doubt that the list is in any way credible or holds water. It doesn't. My work here is done.

You've done no such thing. Pointing out 2 instances you believe to be in error in some way doesn't prove anything. You made an assertion. You have failed to demonstrate your assertion is true. Simple as that.

[homersapien 11,373]

One last word ... Folks are confusing defending Rush's factual comments vs slander & lies as liking him. Like or dislike him, it doesn't matter. To vilify him for false statements attributed to him, made up statements, or remarks taken out of context , is flat out wrong.

Just like with Obama... hold him accountable for the bad things he's actually done & not the bat guano things which aren't of his doing.

First, some of that is gibberish. I doesn't make sense.

Secondly, Rush said what he said. There's plenty of documentation - and in many cases clips - proving he said it.

What is it with you and denying obvious fact?

[TitanTiger 20,482]

I'm not wasting my time debunking every claim . I've shown the list to be biased & disingenuous , at best.

No. You have not. If you're not willing to support your assertion, then withdraw it,

Nope. I've shown reasonable doubt that the list is in any way credible or holds water. It doesn't. My work here is done.

Ok, then let me put it to you this way:

1. Pointing out two instances where you believe MM got Rush's statements wrong out of a list of 33 does not prove YOUR assertion that none of them are true.

2. "Reasonable doubt" is not the standard. Backing your assertion or withdrawing it are the only options.

3. Any further responses from you in this thread that are not either a withdrawal of your assertion or a proven debunking of one of the 33 instances listed will be deleted.

Next time, don't make statements you're unwilling to back up.

[AUDub 11,148]

Titan, Rush isnt PC => Rush is also the spawn of Satan.

That is as deep as it goes with most of the posts around here.

Who here thinks that?

I get that Rush is a drug addled *****head. I said that a while back. I do not listen to the fool at all. He is on the same level as Sharpton, O'Donnell, Schultz, Hayes, Beck, Hannity, et al.

These guys say crap no one thinks is true to feed raw meat to their masses. THE PROBLEM: some folks on the opposite side of their debates can only see that the opposite side pulls this crap.

Who here has done that?

[DKW 86 7,423]

Titan, Rush isnt PC => Rush is also the spawn of Satan.

That is as deep as it goes with most of the posts around here.

Who here thinks that?

I get that Rush is a drug addled *****head. I said that a while back. I do not listen to the fool at all. He is on the same level as Sharpton, O'Donnell, Schultz, Hayes, Beck, Hannity, et al.

These guys say crap no one thinks is true to feed raw meat to their masses. THE PROBLEM: some folks on the opposite side of their debates can only see that the opposite side pulls this crap.

Who here has done that?

ichy, ben, tex, homer...obviously.

[AUDub 11,148]

Titan, Rush isnt PC => Rush is also the spawn of Satan.

That is as deep as it goes with most of the posts around here.

Who here thinks that?

I get that Rush is a drug addled *****head. I said that a while back. I do not listen to the fool at all. He is on the same level as Sharpton, O'Donnell, Schultz, Hayes, Beck, Hannity, et al.

These guys say crap no one thinks is true to feed raw meat to their masses. THE PROBLEM: some folks on the opposite side of their debates can only see that the opposite side pulls this crap.

Who here has done that?

ichy, ben, tex, homer...obviously.

Cite. Particularly concerning me.

[DKW 86 7,423]

Rush isnt PC, therefore...

[AUDub 11,148]

Rush isnt PC, therefore...

I suppose this means no citations are forthcoming.

Mmmk

[AURaptor 1,122]

Rush isnt PC, therefore...

I suppose this means no citations are forthcoming.

Mmmk

What's the point ? They'll just be dismissed, out of hand. And then if others are given, that'll only be 2 citations. Not enough ? Then 3 ? Nope, still not enough...

Tedious and lame

[AUDub 11,148]

Rush isnt PC, therefore...

I suppose this means no citations are forthcoming.

Mmmk

What's the point ? They'll just be dismissed, out of hand. And then if others are given, that'll only be 2 citations. Not enough ? Then 3 ? Nope, still not enough...

Tedious and lame

Still don't get how this works. You make a claim, you be prepared to prove it.

Going to withdraw your wrongheaded assertion?

[AURaptor 1,122]

I've backed up my statements.

I could go down the entire list and debunk each nonsensical claim, as I have with the first two.

What baffles me is how some here who claim to be all religious, all Christian, seem oblivious to the concept of bearing false witness.

Isn't that somewhat mentioned in the Bible ?

I'm talking to the deaf, dumb and blind, it seems.

[cptau 169]

What happen to the Dixie chicks was that their fan base left them. A real direct boycott by fans meaning lower record sales, cancelled concerts, with sponsors dropping later. If their fans had stayed, the sponsors would have.

What happen to Limbaugh was a organized targeted effort by certain groups to get his national sponsors and local sponsors at local radio station to drop their sponsorship. Several of them did drop out because they feared any negative publicity. Many businesses are afraid of losing a small percentage of sales. His fans really never left him.

Are both efforts free speech, yes, but a small well funded group of political activists went after Limbaugh. The Dixie chicks boycott was grass roots. Limbaugh is still around with old and new sponsors and his fan base, the Dixie Chicks never really recovered their earlier success.

Is there a point in there?

One is grass roots boycott, the other a political attack.

Oh puleeze. :-\/> That's a distinction without a difference.

I remember the Dixie Chicks incident very clearly. Talk radio and conservative cable TV were hyping it like crazy.

Now, if you want to argue that there are lots more "common conservative folk" that can be easily riled up over such an "issue" compared to the number of liberals that are going to actively respond to a Rush Limbaugh advertiser boycott, then I would agree.

Yep, there is a difference, one boycott failed and the other suceeded. Most musical groups have short lives anyway. The Dixie chicks would have lasted longer if they hadn't gone political on their fan base. Limbaugh's fans never left him in any significant numbers.

[AUDub 11,148]

I've backed up my statements.

I could go down the entire list and debunk each nonsensical claim, as I have with the first two.

What baffles me is how some here who claim to be all religious, all Christian, seem oblivious to the concept of bearing false witness.

Isn't that somewhat mentioned in the Bible ?

I'm talking to the deaf, dumb and blind, it seems.

No. You have not.

Do it or withdraw your assertion.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

I've backed up my statements.

I could go down the entire list and debunk each nonsensical claim, as I have with the first two.

Then do it. Or retract your statement that all of them are untrue.

What baffles me is how some here who claim to be all religious, all Christian, seem oblivious to the concept of bearing false witness.

Isn't that somewhat mentioned in the Bible ?

I'm talking to the deaf, dumb and blind, it seems.

No, you're talking to people who expect you to back up the things you say, not just some of them.

[cptau 169]

What happen to the Dixie chicks was that their fan base left them. A real direct boycott by fans meaning lower record sales, cancelled concerts, with sponsors dropping later. If their fans had stayed, the sponsors would have.

What happen to Limbaugh was a organized targeted effort by certain groups to get his national sponsors and local sponsors at local radio station to drop their sponsorship. Several of them did drop out because they feared any negative publicity. Many businesses are afraid of losing a small percentage of sales. His fans really never left him.

Are both efforts free speech, yes, but a small well funded group of political activists went after Limbaugh. The Dixie chicks boycott was grass roots. Limbaugh is still around with old and new sponsors and his fan base, the Dixie Chicks never really recovered their earlier success.

Dixie Chicks boycott was part fan base, part corporate. They couldn't get on country radio anymore due to corporate decisions.

If they had attracted new money paying fans that liked their music and politics to replace the lost fans, the corporate bean counters would have been happy. That just doesn't happen that fast. They learned the hard way.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

What happen to the Dixie chicks was that their fan base left them. A real direct boycott by fans meaning lower record sales, cancelled concerts, with sponsors dropping later. If their fans had stayed, the sponsors would have.

What happen to Limbaugh was a organized targeted effort by certain groups to get his national sponsors and local sponsors at local radio station to drop their sponsorship. Several of them did drop out because they feared any negative publicity. Many businesses are afraid of losing a small percentage of sales. His fans really never left him.

Are both efforts free speech, yes, but a small well funded group of political activists went after Limbaugh. The Dixie chicks boycott was grass roots. Limbaugh is still around with old and new sponsors and his fan base, the Dixie Chicks never really recovered their earlier success.

Is there a point in there?

One is grass roots boycott, the other a political attack.

Oh puleeze. :-\/> That's a distinction without a difference.

I remember the Dixie Chicks incident very clearly. Talk radio and conservative cable TV were hyping it like crazy.

Now, if you want to argue that there are lots more "common conservative folk" that can be easily riled up over such an "issue" compared to the number of liberals that are going to actively respond to a Rush Limbaugh advertiser boycott, then I would agree.

Yep, there is a difference, one boycott failed and the other suceeded. Most musical groups have short lives anyway. The Dixie chicks would have lasted longer if they hadn't gone political on their fan base. Limbaugh's fans never left him in any significant numbers.

No, both had a grass roots element. And both had a interest-group, professional agitator element pressuring corporations, radio stations and sponsors. The only real difference is that the grass roots element of the Dixie Chicks boycott came largely from their own fan base, whereas Rush's grass roots element comes mostly (or entirely) from his enemies. But make no mistake, both of them morphed rather quickly into a professional-machine driven thing targeting advertisers, sponsors and corporate entities.

[homersapien 11,373]

What happen to the Dixie chicks was that their fan base left them. A real direct boycott by fans meaning lower record sales, cancelled concerts, with sponsors dropping later. If their fans had stayed, the sponsors would have.

What happen to Limbaugh was a organized targeted effort by certain groups to get his national sponsors and local sponsors at local radio station to drop their sponsorship. Several of them did drop out because they feared any negative publicity. Many businesses are afraid of losing a small percentage of sales. His fans really never left him.

Are both efforts free speech, yes, but a small well funded group of political activists went after Limbaugh. The Dixie chicks boycott was grass roots. Limbaugh is still around with old and new sponsors and his fan base, the Dixie Chicks never really recovered their earlier success.

Is there a point in there?

One is grass roots boycott, the other a political attack.

Oh puleeze. :-\/> That's a distinction without a difference.

I remember the Dixie Chicks incident very clearly. Talk radio and conservative cable TV were hyping it like crazy.

Now, if you want to argue that there are lots more "common conservative folk" that can be easily riled up over such an "issue" compared to the number of liberals that are going to actively respond to a Rush Limbaugh advertiser boycott, then I would agree.

Yep, there is a difference, one boycott failed and the other suceeded. Most musical groups have short lives anyway. The Dixie chicks would have lasted longer if they hadn't gone political on their fan base. Limbaugh's fans never left him in any significant numbers.

I thought the issue was making a distinction between one boycott as being a "political attack" and the other a "grass-roots" boycott.

I don't see the parallel between "success and failure".

In fact, that's a completely different point.